Few corrections, the SYG part was not removed. Also, not sure who it disqualifies for a veteran at proposed. Yes, it has the possibility, but so does the federal government right now. I'm not sure how this changes anything for veterans.

But Sub HB 203 would take the the decision making from the local Sheriff and give it to the BATFE. I bet the feds wish they would have had that in place in Colorado when the Sheriffs stood up for their citizens. Other states are moving in the opposite direction. See http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com ... ification/.

JediSkipdogg wrote:

As to dudleydoright, I need more info. Is your record officially sealed or are you going by the logic of "sealed at 18?" Many think a juvenile record is automatically sealed at 18 when in many times it's not. The ORC doesn't mandate that it be done automatically, it only says "shall be sealed upon the juvenile being 18" or something along those lines. Which the way I read it (and keep in mind, it's been about 2-3 years since I've looked at that section) is that when you apply, it will automatically be granted.

It is a little more complicated than whether a juvenile or adult record is sealed. See State v. Hendren (2005), 9th Dist. No. 22464, 2005-Ohio-2814, http://statecasefiles.justia.com/docume ... o-2814.pdf. In that case, Mr. Hendren was convicted of 7 felonies for having firearms. The appeals court made the following ruling:

“In his argument in support of his assignment of error, Mr. Hendren argues only that his prior conviction was placed under seal by a court, and therefore essentially could not be used against him to convict him of the instant charge. Mr. Hendren invokes R.C. 2953.33, which governs the sealing of records. However, Mr. Hendren does not present any authority that provides that sealing of records under R.C. 2953.33 also applies to relieve a defendant of a disability imposed pursuant to R.C. 2923.13. See, e.g., State v. Conwell (Apr. 12, 2000), 9th Dist. No. 19482, at *17, fn. 3.***Thus, a defendant seeking to be relieved of a disability must do so pursuant to the procedure set forth in R.C. 2923.14. This statute section provides that a defendant seeking to remove a disability is to apply to the court of common pleas in the county in which the defendant resides. R.C. 2923.14(A).*** Mr. Hendren has failed to demonstrate that he followed this procedure.*** The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.”

Anyone who thinks they may be caught in the widening of the firearms prohibition net should consult a good attorney if Sub HB 203 becomes law.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms**disarm only those who [don't] commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides." - Thomas Jefferson.

Few corrections, the SYG part was not removed. Also, not sure who it disqualifies for a veteran at proposed. Yes, it has the possibility, but so does the federal government right now. I'm not sure how this changes anything for veterans.

The "Possibility" is the problem I am having, so wouldn't this make it so an Ohioan has to fight the Feds and our own state if that possibility becomes reality?I don't know how many Ohioans will be in jeopardy with the new law but if there is only 1 person then that is 1 to many to me

My Motto is Leave me alone and I will leave you alone.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it don't

Few corrections, the SYG part was not removed. Also, not sure who it disqualifies for a veteran at proposed. Yes, it has the possibility, but so does the federal government right now. I'm not sure how this changes anything for veterans.

The "Possibility" is the problem I am having, so wouldn't this make it so an Ohioan has to fight the Feds and our own state if that possibility becomes reality?I don't know how many Ohioans will be in jeopardy with the new law but if there is only 1 person then that is 1 to many to me

I actually just read through HB203...someone point me in the right direction for what changes on it affecting vets. I assumed we were talking mental ststus but that is already in there now and is current law. So I'm confused on what angle we are taking here.

Currently, the local Sheriff determines if an applicant is eligible to obtain or renew a CHL under Ohio law. Sub HB 203 would add an additional hurdle to obtaining and renewing a CHL in Ohio by requiring applicants to clear a NICS. That gives BATFE veto authority over Ohio's CHL's. The NICS database includes veterans with PTSD. The fear is that the anti-freedom people who are currently in charge of the executive branch of the federal government will use that as a tool to disenfranchise as many veterans as possible.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms**disarm only those who [don't] commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides." - Thomas Jefferson.

To clarify a point, what is the status of someone who cannot pass a NICS check with regard to possessing a firearm? Is such a person under Federal disability?

Zeko

Someone who cannot pass a NICS check is just that; someone who cannot pass a NICS check or a person who BATFE has determined cannot possess a firearm. Do you want your local Sheriff to make that decision or do you want that decision to be made by these guys: http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchd ... 16641.html?

Of course BATFE would not take away your CHL just like the IRS would not discriminate against the TEA party and Health & Human Services will always allow you to keep your health insurance plan if you like it.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms**disarm only those who [don't] commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides." - Thomas Jefferson.

To clarify a point, what is the status of someone who cannot pass a NICS check with regard to possessing a firearm? Is such a person under Federal disability?

Zeko

Someone who cannot pass a NICS check is just that; someone who cannot pass a NICS check or a person who BATFE has determined cannot possess a firearm. Do you want your local Sheriff to make that decision or do you want that decision to be made by these guys: http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchd ... 16641.html?

Of course BATFE would not take away your CHL just like the IRS would not discriminate against the TEA party and Health & Human Services will always allow you to keep your health insurance plan if you like it.

And that's where I'm not sure I follow you on the Vets/PTSD part. If the feds say PTSD is a mental condition that one can't possess a firearm for, then what good is them having a CHL? I'm not aware of a way around that aspect, as in a restoration of mental health rights.

I followed you on the restoration of rights (although it took a while to get you to explain it appropriately without making me read 400 court cases, but I got it) I'm just not sure I follow you on the Vets one.

To clarify a point, what is the status of someone who cannot pass a NICS check with regard to possessing a firearm? Is such a person under Federal disability?

Zeko

That's my understanding as well. I think the NICS background check is what they're talking about with "giving control to the feds" or whatever.

How many people get bounced by the NICS not because of their record but because of mistaken identity? I suppose those folk could just use their Social Security Number, you know the number .gov said was for tax purposes only and not identification. Would it be simpler dealing with the state only or with the state dealing with .gov trying to clear up a mistake?

The overall number of people bounced by the NICS check is supposed to be very small, although a Review of some sort is often necessary, particularly when the applicant doesn't supply his/her SSN.

The anti-freedom folks DO want to include PTSD as a "mental illness" trigger in NICS. That they'll probably get their way is another story, though, and has nothing to do with this. Getting Zero and some of his fellow travelers out of Office may be the simplest and quickest way, but there are a lot of low-information voters out there....

***

Liberty:

PLEASE....

While it's BFA policy here on the board to not say too much about people attacking moderators and staff (i.e., me and Joel, for example), please stop attacking BFA. You're wrong, and that's that.... ALL of us are affected in some way by everything the politicians do, and while Ohio's Legislature and Governor are quite friendly to us in general, it's still got a lot of Zero supporters in it.... We have to get what we can get, and fix what's necessary, every time. Mostly we're fortunate that the claims of the anti-freedom folks turn out to be bogus every time, but it's still tooth & nail at times, and the don't seem to be getting any better.

Our problem: It's hard to prove that something didn't happen.... If you claim that you got from Point "A" to Point "B" tonight because you were carrying, even a good video won't keep them from claiming that you could have gone some other way, or to some other place, or just left. That this could be tragically wrong just doesn't set in....

Thanks to all for the NICS information . . . so, assume that Joe Veteran can pass the current background check and get an Ohio CHL, but can't pass the NICS check (for whatever reason). Suppose Joe gets his Ohio CHL; however, when he goes to his local gun shop to buy a gun, he can't because he doesn't pass the NICS check. He then seems to have the following choices:

1. Go without a firearm (in which case the CHL is of little or no value).

2. Purchase a firearm privately, without a NICS check, in which case he is in possession of a firearm while under Federal disability.

Does he then (under current law) simply depend on the BATFE not finding out that he possesses a firearm? If they somehow find this out, it would seem he is in deep trouble . . .

To clarify a point, what is the status of someone who cannot pass a NICS check with regard to possessing a firearm? Is such a person under Federal disability?

Zeko

Someone who cannot pass a NICS check is just that; someone who cannot pass a NICS check or a person who BATFE has determined cannot possess a firearm. Do you want your local Sheriff to make that decision or do you want that decision to be made by these guys: http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchd ... 16641.html?

Of course BATFE would not take away your CHL just like the IRS would not discriminate against the TEA party and Health & Human Services will always allow you to keep your health insurance plan if you like it.

And that's where I'm not sure I follow you on the Vets/PTSD part. If the feds say PTSD is a mental condition that one can't possess a firearm for, then what good is them having a CHL? I'm not aware of a way around that aspect, as in a restoration of mental health rights.

I followed you on the restoration of rights (although it took a while to get you to explain it appropriately without making me read 400 court cases, but I got it) I'm just not sure I follow you on the Vets one.

In strict legal terms, Sub HB 203 may not change the legal status regarding firearms possession for veterans who end up on the federal prohibited list, but it will ensure enforcement. Those veterans will not be able to renew their CHL under Sub HB 203. In practical terms, if you are a combat veteran, have a CHL and are arrested by BATFE for trying to purchase a new firearm because you ended up on their list, what jury would convict you of a federal felony knowing that Ohio gave you a CHL? Sub HB 203 will result in you loosing your CHL and take that argument away.

And another thing; those so impaired that they might do crazy things with a firearm should not be walking freely among us, and no law or NICS check will actually prevent them from hurting someone or obtaining a firearm. If we know who they are, why don't we help them? The reason they are not helped is so there is an excuse to add another group to the class of prohibited persons and put procedures in place to effectuate confiscation.

The issue with the veterans is just one example. My main problem with the NICS requirement for CHL is that it shifts the decision making authority from your local Sheriff to the federal government, which is currently very hostile to those who wish to defend themselves. And this bill comes at the time when local Sheriffs have stood against unconstitutional firearms laws and stated their refusal to enforce them. I also don't think it is appropriate for everyone to have to ask the federal government if they can obtain and renew an Ohio CHL. Then there is the red tape issue. I cannot count how many posts I have read where someone could not get BATFE to correct their record in a reasonable amount of time or at all in some cases.

I just think that the eligibility determination should remain with our local Sheriff.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms**disarm only those who [don't] commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides." - Thomas Jefferson.

How many people get bounced by the NICS not because of their record but because of mistaken identity? I suppose those folk could just use their Social Security Number, you know the number .gov said was for tax purposes only and not identification. Would it be simpler dealing with the state only or with the state dealing with .gov trying to clear up a mistake?

Which where my question above came from, if the feds get involved then anyone appealing will have to appeal to the sheriff and the feds tooOr am I reading this all wrong and if the feds get involved will our sheriff be able to straighten any discrepancy up?

My Motto is Leave me alone and I will leave you alone.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it don't